Shadow of the Colossus had more than one reviewer thinking "why am I killing these majestic creatures who just seemed to be peacefully wandering around?" The fact that the spirits that your hero is appealing to appear to have a really malevolent aura to them adds to the moral ambiguity (the dialogue is in some made-up language that has no subtitles, so you're left to guess).

In BL2, after I listened to the Dahl Echo recordings, I felt kinda bad for killing crystalisks and Blue in particular.

Perhaps you could implement a system where the win state is far greater the longer you played the game.This would certainly insight confusion in the player. But the further you get in the game, the closer and more reqarding the winstate gets and the easier it is to win. If the aim of the game was to avoid winning to win bigger perhaps this would insight what you are talkign about?

I thinkt he classic approach is a morale dilemma. The win state has to come with an unethical or immoral choice, and the player must decide if they want to screw ethics and morals to become a winner, or stay a godo person and not win the game.

There is a quote on war games if one doesn't want to lose units: "The only way to win is not to play at all."

Having something or someone that a player can grow attached to is probably one of the best ways.

Fallout 3That option to go into the chamber instead of the girl in Fallout 3. I instantly sacrificed myself without a second thought and the game ended on me haha.

Dark SoulsThe conclusion to Solaire's quest to find his sun if you didn't take the shortcut. That was probably one of the most painful especially since it was my first play through.

Also AC: Black Flag.When you meet the merchant dude in the very beginning I was like this dude is gonna be my new best friend and was pissed when I didn't get a option to get his sugar.

I kind of play games by doing what I'd feel like I'd do in that situation, and do grow attached to alot of characters in games both intentional and unintentional characters. But at the same time I watched my siblings play games and they just kill everyone and what not so I can't say for sure if it can cause most people to turn away from an end to the game.

Shadow of the Colossus had more than one reviewer thinking "why am I killing these majestic creatures who just seemed to be peacefully wandering around?" The fact that the spirits that your hero is appealing to appear to have a really malevolent aura to them adds to the moral ambiguity (the dialogue is in some made-up language that has no subtitles, so you're left to guess).

Yeah, I remember Shadow of the Colossus. The more I played the game, the more I wanted to leave these giants alone. But I couldn't since I wanted to complete the game ("win" feels like the wrong word for SotC).

I´m thinking that letting the player play a person that has a really questionable character, forcing you to do things you don´t want to do. For example, let´s say the protagonist is schizofrenic (the real schizofrenic with wierd halucinations and not a split personality) and the levels are episodes from his sickness. He ventures into really cool looking, grand worlds with wierd monsters and outerworldly architecture but during the game you get flashes from the real world. Then you realize that the player character is actually acting out his sick visions in the real world, and the monsters he´s killing is actually real people, innocent victims. This would lead you to feel an aversion to not wanting to play anymore, but still feel excited about what the next world will be like.

For example, let´s say the protagonist is schizofrenic (the real schizofrenic with wierd halucinations and not a split personality) and the levels are episodes from his sickness. He ventures into really cool looking, grand worlds with wierd monsters and outerworldly architecture but during the game you get flashes from the real world.

Although I don't remember the main character wasn't acting out sick fantasies in the real world, the premise you describe sounds a lot like the game Sanitarium. As I recall the fight was more about fighting inner demons to figure out the "truth" behind how you got to where you are and the events leading up to it. While I think that particular game had a "happier" ending, you could very well leverage the same sort of mechanic of discovering the truth to make players reluctant to complete a game, especially if you drop hints that the truth may reveal a horrific revelation about the protagonist. This of course relies on your audience developing a deep empathy with, and attachment to the character before hints about the darker truth start to fall into place.

Another similar take on the idea can be found in the movie Memento. Though it lacks the hallucination aspect, nothing is as it appears to the main character and there is definitely manipulation by a third party going on.

Arthur: Are all men from the future loud-mouthed braggarts?Ash: Nope. Just me baby...Just me.

So by not giving them another option. Sorta like how in some games, lets say Zelda.

Where if you beat the main ending, the game ends, and potentially reverts back to right before you end it.

Or in contrast to like The Elder scrolls and other games, where you can beat the game and just continue along exploring and beating things.

I know in TES series, I often do most everything in the game, except the main storyline until much later in the game for some reason. I usually progress about 30-50% storyline, then diverge off every which way until there is nothing more to do.

But more importantly, none of those really solve the issue, either they don't really do what you were asking.

The only 2 things I can possibly think of is to somehow set it up that the player knows something bad will happen, or a choice must be made that the player doesn't want to choose.

For example in GTA 5 near the end you have to chose which of the main characters must die permanently (though its possible for you to save them all) its also possible for you to permanently lose a character

So in that regards, you must make something permanent, something you can't change or get back, this means no 'multiple saves' where you can try different endings. You need to have something heavy and deep, that the player must fear or very much dislike to have happen. Or a choice too great for them to bear the consequences not just in the game, but as a human being themselves.

Alternatively, the alternative I feel is to simply NOT have an end. Many MMOs don't technically have an end. Even some silly games like Candy Crush don't technically have a permenant end.

Especially if user generated content is very easily implemented, then technically there is no end. Sort of like Minecraft perhaps? No real end(though thats slightly changed nowadays)

So the question comes up. You want to have an end state, you want the player to keep playing, and you want them to not achieve the end state.

The only thing I can think of, is to present the end be something they truly do not want to happen, or give them more choices of doing something else. Its almost like, is it possible to make an awesome game, that makes it so players do not want to play the game, but want to talk about how great the game is?

Have you ever been playing a game and "gotten out of the map"? Glitched through a wall and seen the entire level (on purpose or otherwise).

Its really cool. You get the feeling that your in this unexplored thing, that even the person who scripted out this perfect little game for you to play has no control over. Its the only true adventure in a video game, I think.

The level, the win state, becomes irrelevant, the only thing your really interested in is that youve broken out of the neat little play whoever made the game had intended you to experience.

Im not talking about shitty glitches like a game crashing or anything like that.

In Halo 1 you could get on top of the flying vehicle (banshee) and have another person smash it into the upper bounds of the map ceiling and you could explore above the level and around it.In MonstersVsAliens for the ps2 you could stand up against this one wall and have a friend roll a boulder into you, sending you out of the map.

What if your game had an obvious "winstate" but the player wasnt motivated to get to it because they think they are beating the system by doing somthing else?

Thats my take on why people were inclined to not throw the companion cube into the incinerator. i dont think it had anything to do with emotional attatchment.

What if there was a game, that was built to be broken out of? Or hacked? But not played. Of course you wouldnt let the user know, just let them think they had beaten your game. And then, in the end, you could let them know you were in control the whole time! Blow their minds.

A true victory would be showing the player an obvious winstate, and them running off and glitching your game, and then in the end showing them the winstate never was even there.

Although I don't remember the main character wasn't acting out sick fantasies in the real world, the premise you describe sounds a lot like the game Sanitarium. As I recall the fight was more about fighting inner demons to figure out the "truth" behind how you got to where you are and the events leading up to it. While I think that particular game had a "happier" ending, you could very well leverage the same sort of mechanic of discovering the truth to make players reluctant to complete a game, especially if you drop hints that the truth may reveal a horrific revelation about the protagonist. This of course relies on your audience developing a deep empathy with, and attachment to the character before hints about the darker truth start to fall into place.

Hmm, I remember playing a demo of Sanitarium when it was new. Time flies... Anyway, yes I agree that it would be important to create a strong connection with the protagonist. I think an important aspect of this is to not rely on cut scenes of dialog to do it, though. That would be to obvious to the player. We all know what to expect, that a story is told with words or magnificent cut scenes and we can sit back and put ourselves outside of the story. I think that the immersion must come from the gameplay itself. We have to lure the player into a feeling.

The interesting thing that Shadow of the Colossus does is that there isn´t much of a story, there´s just a beginning and then there´s this beautiful, solemn world with huge creatures that doesn´t seem to be all that interested in hurting you, at least not compared to ordinary video game bosses. All this creates a mood that implies that you must be doing something wrong. I can´t put my finger on it, though, and I guess this is the beauty of it all.

I loved all the breaks you could do in Halo 2 (never tried the first). I found my own way out of several levels and it was so fun doing it. Games could be a little more fun if they didn't make them completely bullet proof but they have to be unintentional.... damn invisawalls and death berriers

I have had this idea for some time and I might end up implementing it in some ways. The idea is to start the game from the end where you are not victorious. Then you play the game from the beginning. The player knows the end is not with a win. What does motivate him to play the game then? This sounds like a cool experiment to me.

Very simple: every strategy game like for example The Settlers (newer versions).You play a mission, build a city to be able reach the goal and finally you reach it.The game offers you the option to complete the game and continue, but this also means to leave the city you spent ours on to build.Normally you just continue, but it always feels weird...

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org